OrangeCream wrote:I still assert a locked down Linux is the only way it will thrive.

Meta wrote:

Agreed. And, it won't really be Linux in the FOSS sense. it will just be Linux in terms of leveraging as many commodity parts possible (the kernel, etc.). The user interface stuff will be specialized and specific.

One of the reasons most of us who use Linux, use it because it is NOT locked down.

Good for you. That "selling point" hasn't sold Linux, however, so no matter how much you like it, it isn't sufficient to have made any impact on the marketplace.

You can look at the only widely commercially successful Linux platforms for some clues as to what it takes for success, such as Android:1) No one cares that it is open, only that it is cheap2) Even the expensive phones aren't generally open, what with locked bootloaders and custom images3) People want things that work, without extra configuration4) People want things that are state of the art (as opposed to RIM and Nokia phones)

I imagine you might be able to create an open LotD, but it's hard to envision since profit motive more or less requires that competitors not be able to use your software stack, the exception being if you, like Google, license out your SW stack in exchange for increased marketshare.

Damn, meta. You can make your point without insinuating that he was purposely *lying* to his father.

He was purposeful in his insistence that what he was saying was true, despite all evidence to the contrary. When that happens it moves from "i made a mistake" to "i lied and i'm going to continue compounding that lie".

And, tbh, i think he purposefully lied. Based on his behavior in the BF, it's clear he'll say pretty much anything (no matter how untrue) when it comes to advocating linux. I often advocate for OSX/iOS. But i don't make up facts about them. For example, i may say that i find Walled Gardens to be *generally* safer. But i do not say they are without malware. etc. etc. WHM has continually followed the pattern of not only making up statements about Linux, but then being indignant when called on them, and either becoming insistent that he's right, or shifting goalposts to something else. This is not the behavior of an honest advocate, and it's something i think he should be called on.

People will do to Windows 8 what they did to Vista, install Windows 7 or even XP on new computers.

When Windows 8 outperforms both XP and 7, that just seems monumentally dumb to me.

But people can be that dumb so you're probably right.

When a $300 computer has a 1.5Ghz CPU and 2+ gigs of RAM, no one gives a shit about the performance of the OS. Now, the usability of the OS? Yeah, people seem to care quite a bit about that.

I'm a happy XP user until 2014 when it falls out of support, and then it's onto Linux for me. It's very clear the direction MS is taking with their OS development, and it's just not for me. And if you told me 3 years ago that I would ever be seriously considering moving to Linux I would tell you to get your head examined. But MS pushed me there.

I don't think Win8 will cause some huge movement towards Linus or usher in LOTD, but at least from my anecdotal experience, starting with Vista, pausing with 7, and continuing to 8, these Windows releases seem to push more and more people I know to move to Linux on their PC's.

People will do to Windows 8 what they did to Vista, install Windows 7 or even XP on new computers.

When Windows 8 outperforms both XP and 7, that just seems monumentally dumb to me.

But people can be that dumb so you're probably right.

When a $300 computer has a 1.5Ghz CPU and 2+ gigs of RAM, no one gives a shit about the performance of the OS.

Actually, they care quite a bit. The performance directly relates to things like battery life, and that matters a lot to people.

Quote:

I'm a happy XP user until 2014 when it falls out of support, and then it's onto Linux for me. It's very clear the direction MS is taking with their OS development, and it's just not for me. And if you told me 3 years ago that I would ever be seriously considering moving to Linux I would tell you to get your head examined. But MS pushed me there.

Considering you can still do pretty much all your XP tasks in Vista/WIn7/Win8, it's not clear where you're coming from.

Heck, i can even understand reservations on your part about Win8. It actually pushes forth a pretty large UI change. But Win7 is felt to be pretty much universally better than XP across the board. So all you're really saying is "i'm unlike nearly everyone else and so nothing but XP will do". Oddly enough, you'll likely face more of a jump from XP to most Linux distros than from XP to Win7, but you seem to be committed to it, so all power to you.

Quote:

but at least from my anecdotal experience, starting with Vista, pausing with 7, and continuing to 8, these Windows releases seem to push more and more people I know to move to Linux on their PC's.

This should just tell you how bad anecdotes are. The actual data (whoops... you told me to not mention objective facts) contradicts your anecdotes, and yet you keep reaching for anecdotes to make claims that MS it doing the wrong thing.

You can look at the only widely commercially successful Linux platforms for some clues as to what it takes for success, such as Android:1) No one cares that it is open, only that it is cheap2) Even the expensive phones aren't generally open, what with locked bootloaders and custom images3) People want things that work, without extra configuration4) People want things that are state of the art (as opposed to RIM and Nokia phones)

I imagine you might be able to create an open LotD, but it's hard to envision since profit motive more or less requires that competitors not be able to use your software stack, the exception being if you, like Google, license out your SW stack in exchange for increased marketshare.

IMO you're skipping a very non-trivial #0: you can buy a phone with Android already on it. The relative merits of CyanogenMod or jailbreaking an iPhone are irrelevant to most people; they're simply not going to tinker with the OS.

Even if linux were unequivocally better than Windows & OSX on the desktop, it wouldn't gain any real traction until someone started selling it, in mainstream outlets, preinstalled. Whether it's the MS/Google approach of licensing a polished product or the Apple approach of direct hardware sales is rather secondary.

My point is if Windows 8 ends up like Vista, users that are unhappy with Windows 8 may at least take a look at Linux.

Why?

That didn't happen with Vista itself. So even if Win8 is like Vista... then why would things be different.

If Vista was so bad (as your implication seems to make it out to be), and Linux still went nowhere with consumers, then perhaps it isn't Windows holding Linux back, it's Linux itself?

Meta, i've pointed out on this forum for about a year now... that when vista was released around that time period linux marketshare doubled. it doubled.That is a difference.And also major OEMs started suppotring linux.Funnily enough, linux share went down and major OEM withdrew support around Win7 time period.

That's not a concidence, and i've pointed this out before to have various responses, including "blah blah netbooks" and "blah blah concidence" and i don't buy any of that one bit. Vista did in fact increase consumer and OEM interest in linux, and considering Linux's greatest developmental strides were 2004-2008, i'd say it increased developer interest too.So you can say linux is stagnant now and i won't argue with you, it's holding steady at 1.5% for the last couple years. But linux share is directly driven by MS's moves. Linux had a big rise in market interest from 1999-2001 when opinion on windows was at a low with WinMe and the Blaster worm. And then another big rise from 2005-2008 during the Vista/Longhorn debacle. Linux share and interest is DIRECTLY correlated to MS's flops and peaks, and to deny that is foolish.

So, please Meta, respond to this post and explain to me in detail why linux share doubling during the vista/longhorn debacle is somehow irrelevant.

I'm not making them up. Overall the numbers of Linux users does go up.

You claimed their market share was going up.

In reality, it's basically flatlined at ~1% for as far back as I could quickly find.

I would agree with this with one exception: i've always made the case that linux share, according to w3counter, has been steady-ish at 1.5% since roughly 2009/2010... but was around 2.3% during the vista debacle, and around 1.15% before said debacle.Combine this with the peak of linux support during the 1999-2001 period with all the major game ports and commercial software releases for linux at the same time MS was dorking around with WinME and the Blaster worm came out... and i would postulate that interest in Linux amongst OEMs, Developers and Users directly relates to their opinion of MS.

i've pointed this out before to have various responses, including "blah blah netbooks" ... and i don't buy any of that one bit.

You can lead a horse to water. But you can't make him drink.

Since you've already dismissed any argument that you don't like, i'm not sure what the point is.

Meta, lemme explain this simply. I respect you and your position but as an ardent linux fanboy i have my own, of course.The best way to enter any market is with disruptive techniques.XP was stagnant and computer hardware requirements were stagnant with it.Vista was a bloated piggy mess that increased the OEM ASP cost of windows, and required very expensive hardware.Netbooks were a approach to allow linux to enter the market via the low-end where vista wouldn't run on said hardware and where the ASP of a vista license was a major factor. A disruptive strategy. That funnily enough, coincided with the vista/longhorn debacle, because users were ready for something new and were tired of windows. They were ready for a disruptive expereience.

Now, netbooks weren't the only contributor. This was when dell introduced Linux laptops and was the peak of the preinstalled Linux OEM as well with System76 seeing their highest sales at this time. These have to be factored in as well, you can't attribute it all to netbooks.

Now look at the software side of the equation. The lack of enthusiasm in XP/Vista led to rapid development of Linux and the entrenchment of Ubuntu amongst Linux users, and also fueled by Dell's choice of Ubuntu as their distro of choice.

Consider also the rise of Compiz and the extraordinary popularity at the time of Compiz demo videos on youtube... I would say linux definetely had a peak in user interest around the time of the vista debacle. It's not just netbooks, but also, to act like the rise of the netbook was entirely unconnected to the failure/stagnation of Windows XP/Vista is silly. Stagnation opens the path for disruptive hardware, like netbooks, to succeed.Further, the threat of Linux on the desktop was so great, MS lowered the asking price for windows licenses en masse. ASPs dropped and ms was forced to keep selling XP. This is mostly attributable to Linux.

So meta, it's true that netbooks played a part, but the Vista debacle was a true failure of MS and success story for Linux. The success of Win7 naturally stopped Linux in it's tracks once again.

i've pointed this out before to have various responses, including "blah blah netbooks" ... and i don't buy any of that one bit.

Quote:

Netbooks were a approach to allow linux to enter the market via the low-end where vista wouldn't run on said hardware and where the ASP of a vista license was a major factor. A disruptive strategy. That funnily enough, coincided with the vista/longhorn debacle, because users were ready for something new and were tired of windows. They were ready for a disruptive expereience.

I'm so confused by your position. You first say that you don't buy positions that include arguments relating to netbooks. And then you put forth one of those arguments...

"If Win8 turns out to be a bad mainstream desktop OS do you think people will switch to a weaker (in the opinion of me, the great unwashed and my M$ and black polo neck loving friends) mainstream desktop OS instead?"

The answer is still no (in the opinion of me, the great unwashed and my M$ and black polo neck loving friends).

So meta, it's true that netbooks played a part, but the Vista debacle was a true failure of MS and success story for Linux. The success of Win7 naturally stopped Linux in it's tracks once again.

Yeah I remembered hearing how bad Vista was then, and a few people even asked me about using Linux. Well this year lets be prepared to intoduce Linux to people show how much better it is then Windows. And let's hope the justice department beats down Microsoft over the "secure boot" issue.

"If Win8 turns out to be a bad mainstream desktop OS do you think people will switch to a weaker (in the opinion of me, the great unwashed and my M$ and black polo neck loving friends) mainstream desktop OS instead?"

The answer is still no (in the opinion of me, the great unwashed and my M$ and black polo neck loving friends).

tftfy

If Windows 8 turns out to be a bad mainstream desktop OS, consumers will use Windows 7. If the main argument against Windows 8 is that the Metro UI changes the desktop experience enough to frustrate mainstream consumers, why they would choose to use an desktop OS in Linux that also changes the desktop experience that your average consumer is used to instead of using Windows 7, which has been making users happy for years, doesn't make sense.